Human Rights The Hard Questions: Introduction

The democratic surprises of 2016—Brexit and the Trump phenomenon—fueled by “fake news”, both real and imagined, have come to constitute a centrifugal, nationalistic, even tribal moment in politics. Running counter to the shared postwar narrative of increasing internationalism, these events reignited embers of cultural and moral relativism in academia and public discourse dormant since the culture wars of the 1990s and ‘60s. This counternarrative casts doubt on the value of belief in universal human rights, which many in the humanities and social sciences argue have of late been used as instruments of postcolonial oppression. This book essay introduces three texts written before the dawn of the latest “post-truth” era—The Sociology of Human Rights by Mark Frezzo, The Political Sociology of Human Rights by Kate Nash, and Keeping Faith with Human Rights by Linda Hogan—that address moral skepticism of human rights. Along with these authors, the essay briefly treats human rights’ past and prospects, analogizing it to the waves of feminist thought: in international politics, developing nations first desired a seat at the table and repeal of discriminatory laws and practices; when one-nation-one-vote did not result in equal treatment, the persistence of hierarchy helped developing nations awaken to their own evolving national identities and they wished to be recognized as not only equal, but different and unique. The essay recapitulates and amplifies these authors’ argument that the contemporary challenge for all nations, their citizens, and for the human rights community is to deliberatively decide what values unite these identities beyond simple self-determination and extend them toward the goal of a just global whole. The essay also makes an original contribution in summarizing the initial post-war debate in the United Nations that birthed the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights, which has been subject to revisionism and perspectivism typical of cultural and moral relativism. It provides some social scientific, historical, and philosophic grounding for serious conversation of the ideas of truths in politics, and universal, transcultural goods and rights that underpin the authority of the international human rights regime in theory and practice. It does so while recognizing the serious epistemological challenges to this universalist conception, chiefly: how a social construct can be both time-bound human creation and continue to be morally binding across space, time, and the accelerated change global citizens of all corners are experiencing, simultaneously yet in their own way.

2012

papers.ssrn.com

This paper defends several highly revisionary theses about human rights. §1 shows that the phrase “human rights” refers to two distinct types of moral claims. §§2-3 argue that several longstanding problems in human rights theory and practice can be solved if, and only if, the concept of a “human right” is replaced by two more exact concepts: International human rights: moral claims sufficient to warrant coercive domestic and international social protection. Domestic human rights: moral claims sufficient to warrant coercive domestic social protection but only non-coercive international action. §3 then argues that because coercion is central to both types of human right, and coercion is a matter of justice, the traditional view of human rights – that they are normative entitlements prior to and independent of substantive theories of justice – is incorrect. Human rights must instead be seen as emerging from substantive theories of domestic and international justice. Finally, §4 uses this reconceptualization to show that only a few very minimal claims about international human rights are presently warranted. Because international human rights are rights of international justice, but theorists of international justice disagree widely about the demands of international justice, much more research on international justice is needed – and much greater agreement about international justice should be reached – before anything more than a very minimal list of international human rights can be justified.

The Centre for Political Theory and Global Justice was established in 2011 in order to focus and deepen the role of political theory in responding to global issues of human coexistence. Central to the mission of CPGJ has been the promotion of research that deploys and examines dominant philosophical paradigms in the areas of political thought and international political theory. The Centre is particularly interested in issues relating to debates about global justice and how political theory can help inform actual political practice and policy. The Centre welcomes and encourages research from all theoretical traditions and provides a distinctive opportunity for researchers to develop their interests in a supportive and intellectually diverse environment. This working paper series is intended to stimulate discussion and debate about research-in-progress. These papers have not yet been been peer-reviewed.

The growing political importance of human rights runs counter to the widespread intellectual suspicion of universalistic norms and values. In fact, though human rights seem to refer us to very general claims about human beings, their existence as an important theme has emerged only in the specific historical context of the past half century. Human rights entered political and intellectual discourse in the aftermath of World War II, and acquired growing significance in succeeding decades.

German Law Journal, 2004

Human Rights Futures

T h e C o n c e p t o f H u m a n R ig h t s a n d T h e ir E x t r a -L e g a l J u s t if ic a t io n 1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS 1 The author wishes to thank the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies (NIAS) for the assistance received during work on this contribution. 2 H ersch, 1986, p. 132. 3 See H ersch, 1969. 4 W eston, 1991. On the history of the concept of hum an rights, see Oestreich, 1968; Tierney, 1989. 5 Suggested reading on the philosophy of hum an rights: Belden Fields and N arr